Sancho,
I am sorry, but I do not answer loaded questions like “Have stopped beating your wife?”

bushbasher,
perhaps “hypocrisy” was not the right word. If a Young-earth-creationist criticised the Vatican for not accepting as scientific fact that the world was 6000 years old, I could understand his motivations. However how would you describe the motivation of an avowed atheist who would criticise the Vatican for that?

>>it would be more convincing if you dealt less with metaphors and more with the actuality of the catholic church's muddy and intertwined dealings with morals and politics<<
Yes, it would be more convincing if, instead of pointing to the difficulties of the problem of applying moral norms in politics, I actually suggested ideal solutions in particular (or did you mean all conceivable?) situations. If I were able to do that, I think I would be a very valuable adviser to the Vatican on matters of how to apply ethical rules in concrete situation, so that the “common good” be best achieved. Unfortunately, I am not such an expert, therefore also for me concrete situations look often “muddy and intertwined”. I only know something about how much easier it is to do pure mathematics compared to knowing how and in what situations to apply it to achieve the desired effect. That was the reason for my metaphor.

There is not only the problem of applying ethics in politics, but also of fallible humans who are not up to the task of dealing with complicated situations. (Even the pope is “infallible” only as far as teaching on morals, are concerned, not their application in concrete political situations). A sad example is the unfortunate Brazilian archbishop Sobrinho in case of the 9 -year old girl, although remedies have been set into motion starting with an authoritative article in L‘Osservatore Romano by the Head of the Pontifical Academy for Life. Unfortunately, it is always easier to cause damage (in this case to the girl and her family) than to correct or even undo it.

george, the author's motivations don't seem that mysterious to me: he's attacking what he perceives as an inconsistency in the manner the catholic church engages politically on its purportedly firm moral stances.

and of course people, including me, commonly argue in the manner of the author. to take your example, given a biblical (pseudo)-literalist, it's fair to take them to task on the nasty bits of the bible. not because one wants them to whip slaves, but because one wants to confront them with the glaring inconsistency of their position.

with your last post, i guess you don't seem to be arguing against the author as i interpret him. you are rather attributing inconsistency to inherent difficulties of the intersection of morality and politics, and of infallible humans. i take it the author, by comparison, is attributing it to political expediency, and is thus himself charging hypocrisy.

maybe both. but, to the extent that the nature of the church's (or its representative's) political acts are correlated to different political systems, and to the church's social power, i'd say circumstantial evidence gives strong support to the author's contention.

even on your own terms, i think there is a problem. given the inherent difficulties you point to, it would perhaps be prudent of the church and certain representatives to in general be less, um, sanctimonious.

If we're talking about the hypocrisy of the Church, there's no better example IMV than the Church-inspired mantra "Jesus died for our sins".

As if anyone would naturally subject themselves to this form of torture to "help others" and be so sanguine about it. The fact is that if Jesus were to say this he'd be condoning the transgression of one of the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not kill". The truth is that he came to help mankind, mankind felt threatened by his message and murdered him.

What the Church did was to turn this morally reprehensible act to its own political advantage in the pursuit of power. It was propaganda pure and simple in order to stay in a position of power. And it worked, as a billion adherents globally testifies to.

Well played, George!

When caught in an embarrassing and contradictory position, hoist one's nose high and contemptuously claim the discussion is beneath one.

Always nice to see the common man using debating techniques learned from John Howard.

bushbasher,
The author himself states: “This paper argues that if the Vatican was serious about abortion in western liberal democracies, it would: stop complaining about its availability; purge those members of the church who do not share its supposed hard line, including bishops; excommunicate Catholic politicians who dissemble on abortion.“ This is not about inconsistencies but a call for the Vatican to be “fundamentalist“ by interpreting rigidly and verbatim its moral norms.

As for inconsistencies (in providing exceptions and extenuating circumstances to the comandment “you shall not kill”), you are absolutely right and I myself have written an article (not for this OLO, not in English) about the inconsistency in e.g. providing such “excuses” for killings associated with war, but not for “killings” associated with abortion. However, I do not think the solution lies in being as uncompromising in the first case as in the second (or even worse, what the author is suggesting), but in the other way around, in providing as many exemptions and extenuating circumstances for “killings” associated with abortion as for war (Although I am quite happy that the pope was uncompromising, when approached by a number of Catholic neocon heavyweights asking him to declare the attack on Iraq a “just war”).

These, however, are inconsistencies in the rules, not in how they are applied in different situations. For Instance, the pope was against the Iraq war, so should he have excommunicated not only the Catholic generals who took part, but every Catholic pilot or foot soldier who had to take part in the killings (or did he/she, since they all voluntarily chose to be soldiers)? Besides, there is a differences between why one went to war e.g. against Hitler and why against Saddam. And political situations - where considerations like what is the “lesser evil”, what is more beneficial to the “common good” of society, also enter - complicate the matter further.

I think the fundamentalist approach, that the author seems to be suggesting, is certainly not the one leading to the “common good”.

Yes, there are sanctimonious people. Everywhere, not only in the Church.

george, i think on the substance we largely agree, though i'm not sure if you are discussing the catholic church as it is, or as you would like it to be. i also think you may have the wrong end of the stick with the article, but i don't think it's worth pursuing.